All the king's horses and all the king's men can't put trust in TEPCO back together again

Is TEPCO, the hapless operator of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, even remotely interested in trying to repair its shattered reputation? After another cover-up was revealed at the plant this week, we doubt it.

This is the story. Reactor #4 at Fukushima was out of operation, and the fuel assemblies were out of the reactor, when the 2011 earthquake and tsunami hit the plant and triggered the failures that led to the catastrophic meltdowns of reactors #1, #2, and #3. The building of reactor #4 was subsequently damaged by hydrogen explosions and fire from the disaster at its sibling reactors.

Inside the reactor #4 building, 100 feet above ground level, is a storage pool containing the reactor’s over 1,500 nuclear fuel assemblies, 1,300 or so used ones that are still very hot, and another 200 or so that are unused. The hot assemblies need continuous cooling. Each assembly of spent fuel contains radiation equivalent to 10 Hiroshima atomic bombs.

The building is vulnerable to further earthquakes. If any of the fuel assemblies were to be exposed to the atmosphere through a mishap during the operation, dangerously high levels of radiation could be released into the environment. So TEPCO has decided to remove the fuel assemblies and transfer them one at a time to a less vulnerable storage pool.

They've come up with a complicated system of cranes and mobile storage casks for the task. It is a system that worries the head of Japan’s Nuclear Regulatory Authority.

The work is expected to begin Monday and take over a year to complete.

Well, you're probably thinking, some damage is only to be expected with the plant having been hammered with such force by earthquake and tsunami. This is where the cover-up comes in.

The fuel assemblies weren't damaged by the 2011 disaster. It happened earlier. One of them was damaged in 1982 after being mishandled - nearly 30 years ago - and they have lain forgotten or ignored ever since.

A massively complicated operation just got more complicated. If TEPCO had addressed the problem at the time instead of ignoring it, their job now would be a little bit more straightforward.

But that's TEPCO. They have a nasty habit of covering up problems only for those problems to come back to bite them (and the people of Japan).

Thank you Greenpeace. Much the same cover ups and risk taking have been common practice at UK nuclear sites since 1965. Published scientific and epide...

Thank you Greenpeace. Much the same cover ups and risk taking have been common practice at UK nuclear sites since 1965. Published scientific and epidemiological studies detailing public health damage are ignored by UK regulators to the extent that politicians are now complicit in EDF's attempts to build two more lethal nuclear reactors on the Hinkley C site.

I am writing you from San Francisco Bay Area. Apart from being a U2 fan, you seem...

Letter to Bono (sent last week)

Dear Bono,

I am writing you from San Francisco Bay Area. Apart from being a U2 fan, you seem to be one of my last hope to save the mother Earth from ongoing onslaught in Fukushima, Japan. I am sure you are well aware what is going on in Fukushima, then again you may be too busy to pay closer attention. So let me draw you a closer picture. We are loosing mother Earth on a thousands of times faster pace than ever before. If nothing is done we will lose mother Earth within our lifetime.
300 tons of radioactive water mixing in to Pacific Ocean everyday for the last 32 months. At the moment radiation has already reached down to New Zealand and it is spreading faster than any other contamination world has ever seen before. Whole Pacific Ocean is contaminated with radiation and it is increasing everyday. Sailors who sailed from Japan to Hawaii stated that they did not see a single living creature in the Ocean for 3000 n. miles off the coast of Japan. Most of the fish probably have swam away, but everything else which could not get away are dying. Starfish and jelly fish are slowly melting, and the Polar Bears are loosing their fur. Tons of dead sardines washed on to Oregon coast last week. As we all know that high radiation kills all life forms, and it spreads in all directions inside water. If the Oceans die, Earth will surely die as well. It may already be too late to save the Oceans, but we should still try and hope for the best.
After the last earthquake near Fukushima on Oct 25, reactor 4 with it's containment of 1500 radioactive rods (300 pound each) has begun tilting on it's side. If those rods become exposed to air, or begin to touch one another it will cause a fire and we are talking about an immediate global disaster. Tokyo Electric company TEPCO is about to attempt to remove the rods. However since their machine is broken they are planning to do this removal manually. They are also asking for another 2 years to stop the radioactive leak in to the Ocean. Total madness. Japanese premier Shinzo Abe asked for an international help last month, but U.N. still has not gotten involved. It is mind boggling, but they do not seem to understand the urgency of this situation. This is the biggest threat to our planet since Hiroshima and Nagazaki! Scopes of this disaster will be hundreds of times greater than that, and the Chernobile disaster combined. U.N. must take over the operation in Fukushima a.s.a.p. and gather the best of the best crew and necessary equipment to do this job safely and swiftly. World can not afford to leave such an important and lethal operation in the hands of corrupt and incompetent company. We can not allow one bad company to poison our mother earth to death. And in the meantime
there is a media black out on this issue (except Tom Hartman in RT) Media is not talking about it, politicians aren't talking about it, and the people are totally unaware. And I believe there will be no health hazard warnings coming from any government until they can not hide it anymore. They would not want to sacrifice fishing and tourism industries. They rather go down in flames while making money. I have seen this happening during the Chernobil disaster and I am still suffering from the effects of eating radioactively contaminated food.
So please, please, please. I am begging you to do something, and pull some strings. You know many powerful and influential people. Pres. Bill Clinton is one of them. Please help us to increase the awareness on this issue. Unless we manage to build up a huge pressure on Japanese government or U.N. to solve this problem, believe me they do not care. After all, illuminati (or one percent) want billions dead. But this time they do not realize that they will loose this most beautiful planet as well.
I would like to thank you for being who you are. Thank you for all those beautiful songs and standing up for humanity.
May God's love be with you always.

The coverups are of course bad but, on top of them, what worries me is that Tepco *gave up* extracting those 3 fuel assemblies. Will they be able to e...

The coverups are of course bad but, on top of them, what worries me is that Tepco *gave up* extracting those 3 fuel assemblies. Will they be able to extract the assemblies damaged in the 2011 disaster? or will they fail like they are failing with water?

This situation is getting critical. The pacific ocean cannot recover from the tonnes of radioactive water spilling every day. The Japanese cannot cope with this disaster alone. This is beyond blame right now.

Greenpeace, i urge you to become more vocal on this to the UN right NOW. I urge all Greenpeace members to ask Greenpeace to become vocal. Loudly vocal, daily, hourly. Every second of every hour of every day there is radioactive material seeping into the ocean.

Unless we make the international community act to provide technological and financial assistance, there is going to be precious little life left to fight for. The pacific ocean will be dead in 5-6 years and much of the pacific coast sick and dying.

@Luma and @Lemurian - Thanks a lot for your engagement. It is very important that people talk about these issues and point out the dangers attached to nuclear power, because many seem to forget or rather be in denial.

Having said that, a bit of larger overview. As Justin McKeating pointed out in his blog, the removal of fuel from unit 4 is a very complex operation with quite a bit of risk attached to it - and we are right not to trust TEPCO as organisation too much with large risks. However, not doing it would probably be more risky - a large earthquake could further damage the pool or even let it collapse. We have called from the start for international involvement. However, not only from the UN's IAEA (you remember probably that the IAEA's mandate on nuclear power is its promotion, not it's critical overview), but most importantly involvement of nuclear industry independent experts.

Apart from that, the operation has been prepared in very much detail. We call on the international community to follow this with the highest scrutiny. But remember that in the mean time, radioactive water is continuing to leak into the ocean. The fuel ponds of the other three reactors are also a concern - especially from the units 1 and 3, where nobody will be able to enter for a long time to come.
And over a hundred thousands people are still evacuated from which many will not be able to ever return to their homes, while others are sent back to areas that will expose them to more than the 1 mSv/yr limit set by the ICRP. And most are not properly compensated, while in the same time TEPCO seeks to recover its balance sheet by preparing the restart of 2 Kashiwazaki Kariwa reactors...

It is good to ask attention for the risks around the fuel removal, but we should prevent it loosing sight on the other issues that play. Panic and hype stories are in my eyes less helpful here. The Pacific can not be killed completely by humankind, but locally parts of it can be made to suffer - and many people with it.

Also we should not in panic relate everything we see in the ocean to Fukushima. There is over-fishing, oil and chemical pollution, climate change (incl. CO2 uptake and acidification) that lead to threats of ocean eco-systems. And sometimes plainly natural causes for local mass-dying.

Keeping our cool and taking the measures that need to be taken can help us re-establish the precious balances on this planet in a way that people can remain part of it. And that involves an energy [r]evolution away from nuclear and fossil, a stop of large scale industrial fisheries and full protection of key parts of oceans and land, and development of really sustainable agricultural practices, to name a few.

I read now that Greenpeace has walked out of the COP19. And I also read that Japan has stopped its co2 reduction policies ...

Jan Haverkamp,

I read now that Greenpeace has walked out of the COP19. And I also read that Japan has stopped its co2 reduction policies as a result of shutting down its nuclear power plants.

Will Greenpeace urge the Japanese to restart their nuclear reactors? Or does Greenpeace not care about reducing co2 emissions?

Another question: Despite all the negative news about Fukushima, the World Health Organisation has clearly explained that radiation from Fukushima will have little or effects on human health or the environment. Why does Greenpeace not explain this to its members? On this page, we can read some comments from people who are *panicking* about Fukushima. Is Greenpeace not interested in the mental health of these people? Why does Greenpeace not explain that Fukushima could never have been a threat to the ocean or to Japan, and that it is no threat? I would really like it if Greenpeace explained more to its member in order to prevent unnecessary mental breakdown, rather than feeding the irrational, extraordinary fear about fukushima.

Hello Joris, welcome back. Still no new arguments, I see.
Greenpeace has presented the Japanese government already in 2011 a version of the Energy [R]evolution Scenario with policy measure proposals that could keep Japan within its climate commitments (and better) while not restarting a single NPP.
If you want to address this problem, write to the Japanese government that it should change its policy focus from nuclear and fossil to renewables and efficiency. It can be done and many in Japan are already doing it.
Concerning your remarks about the effects of Fukushima, please, read the UNSCEAR and WHO reports and not only their press releases. They do not say that there are no effects - in contrary. And take the people seriously. Greenpeace has done itself measurements regularly around the Fukushima Daiichi NPP and helps people on the ground with the interpretation of data. That should have been the task from the government and TEPCO, but they have utterly failed in doing so in a credible way.
If you denounce the real and scientifically well argued risks and attached fears of people like "irrational", you do not take either science, nor the UNSCEAR and WHO reports, nor the people seriously.

Vision of Japan without fossil or nuclear production of electricity is completely unrealistic (we are talking about visible future of about next three...

Vision of Japan without fossil or nuclear production of electricity is completely unrealistic (we are talking about visible future of about next three decades). Situation of Japan is much worse than situation of Germany. Possible usage of hydro and biomass at Japan is very limited. By the way, failure of dam killed more people than Fukushima accident during 2011 Tohoku earthquake. It is also not possible to import and export electricity for Japan. Germany imports hydro electricity from North Europe and nuclear a fossil electricity from France, Czech Republic and Poland in the time without wind and sun. Development of Germany electricity production shows real results of Greenpeace antinuclear ideology. The Germany fossil electricity production increases and also CO2 production from electricity production. Czech Republic has smaller share of coal electricity production than Germany.
I think, that Joris read WHO and UNSCEAR reports. And he also understood these reports. But I have experience, that Greenpeace peoples do not understand such reports. One example for Mr Haverkamp (he uderstand Czech): http://www.osel.cz/index.php?clanek=6983 . Results of both mentioned reports are that influence of radiation will be negligible in the case of Fukushima accident. This is not true in the case of psychology and social effects. It is necessary to measure and follow radiation and its effects. And decrease radiation dose. But the dominant field where is possible really help are somewhere else. Lemurian is product of "Greenpeace help of interpretation of data and campaign".

Dear Mr. Wagner - For other readers, Vladimir is Vladimir Wagner, a researcher at the nuclear research centre in Řež in the Czech Republic and the vice-chair of a commission that proposed the current Czech energy policy that tries to crash renewables and goes fully on more coal and nuclear. Dear Mr. Wagner, welcome back. Fact check: One dam broke in the Fukushima region with - at the time I have been able to find out, according to Kyodo 8 people missing and 2 people found dead. Five houses were destroyed. The dam was for irrigation and did not produce electricity. For your memory: Fukushima prefecture has certified around 1600 people dying because of the nuclear evacuations, slightly more than the total amount of tsunami victims in the prefecture. We do not know whether on top of that there might still people die because of radiation effects, but it is likely. Potential numbers are difficult to assess and estimates are varying widely.
It is clear you have not taken a look at the Japanese energy [r]evolution scenario, but Japan has not only the drawbacks you sketch, but also a few advantages compared with Germany: it's island position, creating a much more positive profile for wind energy, a better solar position and better chances for geothermal energy. Main hindrance is its regional monopoly grid division. International grid-connections would theoretically be possible with Korea and China, but the energy [r]evolution scenario does not count with that.
About the German coal myth that seems to be so popular among pro-nuclear advocates we have discussed many times in this blog comments before. I am not going to repeat that here. Fact is that Germany is on track towards overshooting its 2020 emission targets widely, whereas the Czech Republic is struggling to meet them - and will miss them on the basis of your proposed energy policy.
The results of the WHO and UNSCEAR reports is that in the group of victims outside of the 20 km zone (outside!) no radiation health effects have been found yet and that it is deemed difficult if not impossible to be able to trace them down in future. Not because there will not be effects, but because it will be difficult to align single cases with the cause Fukushima.
Your article in Osel (= donkey - a popular Czech blog site) is not very convincing. You attack someone who wanted to make clear that health effects of radiation do exist - something that in the Czech Republic needs to be said every now and then, because people like you create the impression that one can stand in the midst of a nuclear bomb explosion and come out healthier... OK - now I exaggerate, but you do not exactly follow the general scientific consensus (with debate to both sides) of the linear no-threshold model of the ICRP. You juggle the numbers to prove she is wrong to suggest that radiation has health effects. That is manipulation. The fact that you consider *your* estimate of several tens of extra cancer related deaths as negligible, I leave to you. I think with good reason that your estimate is somewhat on the low side, but it will be difficult to prove that. I think that no extra death is negligible.
Basically what you are pleading for is to expand nuclear power, have every decade or so a large accident, don't evacuate people (it might be good for their health to get some radiation) and accept the bit of costs that are connected to clean-up.
Against that stands Greenpeace's well calculated plead for a nuclear phase-out towards a climate saving, renewable and sustainable energy system, so that we do not need to live through another Chernobyl or Fukushima again and prevent the amount of large scale destructive weather patterns increasing. Reader, make your choice.

Only shortly:
1) Comparison and comparison of the same type of numbers are necessary. Evacuation is necessary also during dam fails, tsunami an...

Only shortly:
1) Comparison and comparison of the same type of numbers are necessary. Evacuation is necessary also during dam fails, tsunami and ... But indirect victims are mostly not counted in these cases. Only two nuclear power station accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima) had influence on population. Every decade are many dam fails and several had much worse impact than Chernobyl (direct and also indirect victims - it is necessary to compare same type of numbers) during last fifty years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure ). Many Fukushima people should be evacuated also without nuclear accident (consequence of tsunami).
2) It is necessary to compare reality and not papers and words. The fossil and coal usage for electricity production increases in Germany and strongly decreases in Czech Republic. The decrease of Czech coal usage is mainly done by increasing usage of nuclear but also by renewable (last years mainly by new biogas stations). Czech energy policy stopped noneffective large photovoltaic power stations but it supports effective decentralized usage of renewable. Share of fossil electricity increases in Germany during 13 years of "Energiewende". Share of fossil electricity decreased by more than 20 percentage points during same time in Czech Republic.
3) The best is to read WHO and UNSCEAR reports (I propose this). But it is necessary to know statistic methods and understand numbers. This is exactly necessary knowledge which I explained in my article on server Osel. Many not only Greenpeace people have problem with understanding of scientific methods. Estimations of WHO and USNCEAR were done by very conservative way and I used them. My estimates are not on the low side, on the contrary on high side, from this reason. Few cancers during whole live do not mean few cancer deaths (specially for thyroid cancer). Resulting WHO estimation was zero cancer deaths for case discussed in my Osel article. Comparison with other influences is the most important also in this case (influence of radiation is negligible against influence of diet, social conditions ...)

Ad 1. This issue was discussed earlier on this platform and we don't disagree on the negative sides of big dam projects. For that reason, the Greenpeace energy [r]evolution scenario does not include big dam projects. Whether the amount of victims from Chernobyl is larger or smaller than the largest dam catastrophes is still an open question. Our estimates are that they are in the same order of magnitude. Closing the eyes for the victims of the evacuations because of the nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima (called "indirect victims" by you) is a cheap trick to keep up the image from nuclear. I hope you at least agree with me that Fukushima is a catastrophe.

Ad 2. Falling industrial energy use (because of a fall in productivity of the heavy industry and because of efficiency gains) played the major role in Czech emission reductions. The Czech nuclear programme has never been driven by concern for climate change, nor has your Paces II energy strategy. I would be happy to hear some recent numbers from you about an increase of biogas. If there is a hopeful development there, I would be happy. I am only aware of an increase of co-firing of biomass in coal power stations (a criminal waste of our Czech forests! Far too inefficient to be able to call that sustainable biomass use!) and I am aware of the rather unsustainable trend of waste incineration and use of that heat for electricity generation. The use of fossil fuels in Germany's electricity mix has decreased, not increased, and we see a similar trend in heating And both see continuing decreasing trends. I agree with you that we should stop the remaining new coal plans in Germany - and I hope you want to support us in stopping the break of the coal mining limits in the Czech Republic as well as the refurbishment of Pocerady and other coal projects.

Ad 3. We have analysed the UNSCEAR and WHO work intensively and have pointed out in earlier blogs the weaknesses. This was done with people who have more than sufficient background to understand the statistic methodologies used. The comparison with other factors is disingenuous. First of all, the effects of other influences are different, secondly, when one is forced to live near to a nuclear power station that comes into a meltdown, one does not change one's diet, smoking habits, flying habits or medical research habits in order to lower one's exposure to radiation or other unhealthy effects. The biggest scandal I find is that even experts like you do not flag the fact that these reports are based on data of people outside the 20 km zone.

1) The dominant part of renewable electricity is produced by hydro. If you say that your energy conception is based only on renewable you say yeas fo...

1) The dominant part of renewable electricity is produced by hydro. If you say that your energy conception is based only on renewable you say yeas for big dam (see Austria, ...). I am not against counting of indirect victims but it is necessary count them in all cases (dam failure, victims of another energy sources ...).What I said is, that it is necessary to compare same type of numbers.
2) Your statement is not true. The electricity production increased in Czech Republic during last thirteen years. Your statements are not true. The nuclear program was started and is driven by necessity to replace coal and it really works. Thirteen years ago share of fossil electricity in Czech Republic was much higher than in Germany. Situation is opposite now. Germany has higher share of fossil electricity than Czech Republic. This is real result of difference of two energy policy.
3) As I proposed, the best is to read reports and understand numbers. Comparison is necessary to do every time. Without comparison you will go to nonsense.

I don't think I am hyping up anything. The truth is, we all fell a sleep at the wheel. TEPCO covered it up untill la...

Dear Jan,

I don't think I am hyping up anything. The truth is, we all fell a sleep at the wheel. TEPCO covered it up untill last month and confessed it finally. And most of us trusted government of Japan to take care of this situation. After all Japanese people have always been very together and appear to know what they were doing. We just did not know how corrupt and incompetent TEPCO was.
I think this is globaly most urgent issue to be taken care of. World can not afford to give one more year to TEPCO. U.N. must take over the operation for removal of the rods.
Please take a look at these satellite images. I am not sure if the second one is authentic, but the first one is. It is from March 2012. You can do the math to guess how far the radiation must have spread by now. I do not enjoy giving bad news to people but this is far more important than how it makes us feel. Our planet is in a huge danger.
We must do everything to stop this leak now! and we must abolish nuclear power for good, if we ever survive this one.
Thank you for your attention.

There are complete nonsense here. Images shown by Lemurian are not explained. NOAA data (shown on first image) show really different results: http://a...

There are complete nonsense here. Images shown by Lemurian are not explained. NOAA data (shown on first image) show really different results: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/lots-of-radioactivity-but-little-risk-in-oceans-seafood-near-fukushima/ . Even near Fukushima activity of Fukushima radioactivity is lower than natural background (given for example by 40K). There are not sign of Fukushima radioactivity in seawater near Hawaii a relatively early from Fukushima starts to be many orders lower than natural background radioactivity of seawater. Real measurements see: http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/5223/2013/bgd-10-5223-2013-print.pdf Greenpeace rejects science long time ago and it is based only on ideology now.
For Jan Haverkamp: Czech republic has smaller share of fossil and also coal electricity than Germany. It is result of Green Germany revolution based on Greenpeace ideology :-)): http://technet.idnes.cz/obnovitelne-zdroje-cesko-nemecko-dq4-/veda.aspx?c=A131103_182539_veda_mla

The analyze of sea water results you presented are from last year. In fact they are 18 months old. I admit that the maps I...

Dear Vladimir,

The analyze of sea water results you presented are from last year. In fact they are 18 months old. I admit that the maps I presented may not be authentic either, but you can not find any recent maps in the internet, for some reason!
We are talking about at least 300 tons (TEPCO confessed it last month) of radioacive water mixing in to Pacific Ocean everyday for the last 32 months. In other words nearly 300.000 ton of radioactive water has gone in to Pacific Ocean. I think this is a lethal dose and I do not think that is an ideology! It is both science and a common sense!
Best independent site for finding out radiation levels is at www.radiationnetwork.com Levels in San Francisco was at 25 before the rain, and I watched it going up to 53 during downpour yesterday, which confirmed that rain (coming from Pacific) is radioactive. And we all know the consequences of having a radioactive rain! We have to learn to live with this on the Pacific coast by taking precautions and hope for the best.
We are not here to argue who is right and who is wrong. We just have to do everything to get this deadly leak stopped a.s.a.p. I hope we agree on that.

Dear Lemurian, it is understandable from your response that you know nothing about radiation. You wrote: "Levels in San Francisco was at 25 befor...

Dear Lemurian, it is understandable from your response that you know nothing about radiation. You wrote: "Levels in San Francisco was at 25 before the rain, and I watched it going up to 53 during downpour yesterday, which confirmed that rain (coming from Pacific) is radioactive. And we all know the consequences of having a radioactive rain! We have to learn to live with this on the Pacific coast by taking precautions and hope for the best."
But it is not possible to measure radiation from Fukushima by Geiger counters (used by www.radiationnetwork.com) at USA or Europe. Level of Fukushima radioactivity was even during time of maximum many orders lower than natural background. It was possible to measure it only by filtering of many cubic meters of air and by identification of special isotopes by means of gamma spectroscopy.
Changes described by you are probably produced by tritium and other radionuclides produced by cosmic rays at atmosphere and transported by rain downwards.
Also your text: "We are talking about at least 300 tons (TEPCO confessed it last month) of radioactive water mixing in to Pacific Ocean everyday for the last 32 months. In other words nearly 300.000 ton of radioactive water has gone in to Pacific Ocean. I think this is a lethal dose and I do not think that is an ideology!" is nonsense. Lethal dose is done by radioactive nuclei concentration. If you have even 300 000 ton radioactive water (how radioactive?) in many billions cubic m of sea water, the change of its radioactivity will be smaller than value of natural radioactivity. And this was confirmed by measurements. It is clearly not not possible to produce lethal dose.
It is important to stop any leakage of radioactivity from Fukushima. But your and Greenpeace texts are completely nonscientific and nonsense, pure ideology.

@Vladimir - Thanks for explaining a bit about the hoaxed maps and radioactivity. Saves me a lot of writing.

@Lemurian - this exactly illustrates why I am scared for these hypes. You will not find maps of radiation spreading in the oceans, because it is very difficult to measure such low concentrations of radionuclides. The early maps of spreading of radioactivity in air as published, among others, by the French IRSN, were based on calculations and then verified with I-131 measurements, which was in the early days possible. With the sea-spread of Cs that is a lot more difficult and unreliable.
The US hypes divert the attention from what the real issues are and they give gunpowder to the nuclear lobby. The real issues now are the continuing leakage of radioactive water *in* Fukushima, the risks attached to the stability of the reactors when earthquakes hit and then to the fuel removal operations, the lives of the people in the surroundings (incl. that of all those evacuees that have not been properly compensated yet) and Japan's unwillingness to steer its energy policy in a sensible direction.

@Vladimir II - Your remark about Greenpeace texts being "non-scientific and nonsense, pure ideology" is nonsense. No, they are not scientific texts. We leave that bit of the science to academics and institutes who work out, for instance, the energy [r]evolution scenarios. We do also measurements ourselves and follow all the proper rules of science when doing so, but we do not public scientific articles about that - I wish we had time for that... We are not ideological, but independent. We don't have to be ideological. Facts speak louder than opinions. But we are not afraid to enter the debate about the facts, to be in the public discourse. We are also not afraid to make scientific facts understandable for a larger public.
So, if you want to make accusations, then, please, also come with some solid proof.